Tolkien v. Howard v. Lovecraft

[thormagni]

Long post here, sorry about that.

Just to clarify my point about symbolism and allegory and people's reaction to the same: I think most people are immune to symbolism in the sense that they do NOT RECOGNIZE it is symbolism. Especially at the fundamentalist level of an expression of faith.

For example, the book of Genesis in the Old Testament clearly has two creation stories, expressed one right after the other. The two are not compatible in timeline, order or details. A more liberal theology (such as mainstream Catholicism) recognizes that the two stories are allegories, meant not to be taken literally. However, the fundamentalist perspective is to believe that both are equally literal and true. How can two things that are opposed both be true? Cognitive dissonance sets in. The normal answer is that the two opposing stories are both equally true because GOD SAYS SO.

Recognizing allegory and symbolism as such requires a sort of sophisticated mechanism for thought-processing that many, probably most, people just don't have. And while I agree that a literal reading of a myth or belief does little to answer OUR questions on the great issues of existence, I think for many people, perhaps most, all THEY need is the dogmatic answer that puts an end to the discussion. They desparately want someone to tell them something they can believe in. And they accept that answer at face value and that is enough for them.

As for the fluidity of previous religious beliefs: I think it is a mistake to set up modern man as a completely different creature from previous generations, in either a positive or negative sense. I personally think modern religious beliefs are just as fluid as previous religious beliefs, only since it is happening around us every day, we don't recognize it is happening.

Let me use Christianity as an example. One of the bedrock beliefs for many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians is the belief in a Rapture and the End Times: an armageddon where true believers will be whisked away to heaven in body and nonbelievers will be left to suffer on Earth until Christ returns. For fundamentalists, this is a core belief. Yet, it has not been a core belief for 2,000 years of Christianity. Instead, it was created almost entirely within the last 200 years.

The largest denomination of Christianity, Catholics, views this is a heresy. Yet, many modern American Catholics are accepting the belief in a Rapture even though it is not being taught in their churches. In fact, if you were to ask most American Christians if they believe in the Rapture, I suspect a vast number (if not a majority) would say yes. They are adopting a new religious belief that did not even exist 250 years ago, which I think we can agree would be a mere eyeblink in an archaeological time frame. Does that mean that they are not devout in their beliefs? Or that these folks do not sincerely believe that the world is coming to an end and there will be a Rapture?

Of course they believe it. This is not just some story for them, it is a fact of their existence.

The fastest growing sect of Christianity is Mormonism, which also did not even exist 250 years ago. You have this entirely new church rising up from its foothold in the West and spreading across the country, co-opting Christian themes with a new gospel. Do Mormons not really believe in Joseph Smith and Jesus? Of course they believe.

And even within the last 50 years, you have sects like Scientology pop up. Tom Cruise believes in alien spirits and mental pollution and such. There is no question in my mind.

If a future archaelogist were picking over the remains of our society today, how much common ground would they find between the local Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Community and Mormon churches? Would these be one monolithic "Christian" institution? Would our beliefs as a society appear set in stone, or fluid?

Yet, the majority of the people who attend each of those churches fervently and sincerely believe that they are receiving the actual literal truth and accepting it as such.

Even within our own lifetime, people are quite capable of holding one set of religious beliefs for many years and then suddenly switching to another set of religous beliefs. And they hold the second set just as literally true as they hold the first set. For example, my co-worker grew up as a Catholic, yet within the last 10 years became an evangelical. The two sets of beliefs are NOT compatible, yet he is a fervent believer in his new beliefs and I have no doubt that he was a fervent believer in his previous beliefs.

Really, just look at the current conflicts between fundamentalists and science. The biggest fundamentalists knocks against science are that science doesn't claim to have all the answers, that those answers it does have are subject to change and that those answers contradict the literal truth of the fundamentalists' religious doctrine.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

All true and well-said; I am just saying that is against religion's best interest in stating such things as objective truth. What is truth? Unfortunately, it is subjective. As Obi-wan stated, many of the truths we cling to depend upon our point of view.

Modern religion should go back to teaching people to recognise symbolism. Ancient religions did that - at least for the elite (unfortunately, the masses are more easily controlled if they fail to understand subjective reality). That is my point.

At some point, those masses, who had not been taught the symbolism (or at least not fully), took control of the religions - and thus we have the literal truth problem inherent in so many.

They should also teach that religion, like science, is subject to change as new truths are realised instead of insisting that old dogma be followed. Perhaps people are changing religions and looking for cults to join because they are also realising that there is something more - but no one is teaching the "more" part in their current religion. Sure they believe fervantly - we all like to cling to our truths - but few recognise how mutable that belief is.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Recognizing allegory and symbolism as such requires a sort of sophisticated mechanism for thought-processing that many, probably most, people just don't have.

I think that is because they have not been taught to do so, not because they cannot do so.

Catholics used to have the Bible on the banned books list. When that did not work, they wrote it in an elitist, dead language (Latin). They did these things because they felt the masses would not understand and would misinterpret scriptures. Luther disagreed and once the Bible was translated into common German, the Christian world blew apart into different sects... maybe the early Catholics were right. Even today, with common-tongue services and so on, the Catholic religion is still the most symbol-laden Christian religion there is. Those who started the Christian off-shoots probably did not understand the symbolism and so the symbols are gone from many fundementalist faiths.

If religion began teaching the symbolism (which at this point may be impossible due to lost knowledge), we would have a vastly different world - and one less devoted to literal interpretations. Of course, we would have a less controlled population as well.

I am just saying that the elite were taught a different religion than the masses in the ancient times, and that the myths carried the keys to that different religion. Of course they believed - but it was different than it is today.

 

[thormagni]

At some point, those masses, who had not been taught the symbolism (or at least not fully), took control of the religions - and thus we have the literal truth problem inherent in so many.

I think this is the key area where we differ. I do not believe that there is or was some upper crust of religous leaders who realized that it was all a bunch of hokum, symbolism, smoke and mirrors. I think religious leaders generally believe that they are expressing the perfect, revealed truth of the faith. Of course, human beings are human beings and from an outsider's perspective it is easy to see how faith has been twisted to fit leaders' own personal preferences and prejudices. But I just don't believe that religous leaders were thinking "well, I can control the masses if I give them this story."

They should also teach that religion, like science, is subject to change as new truths are realised instead of insisting that old dogma be followed. Perhaps people are changing religions and looking for cults to join because they are also realising that there is something more - but no one is teaching the "more" part in their current religion. Sure they believe fervantly - we all like to cling to our truths - but few recognise how mutable that belief is.

I think religion can never admit to its own flexibility. It purports to reveal bedrock truths about the very nature of existence. Should those truths openly change, then they were never truths in the first place. And what reason would there be to believe that last week's truth is any more concrete than this week's? So they subtly change over time, while maintaining that there really never was any change. It is very Orwellian.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I think this is the key area where we differ. I do not believe that there is or was some upper crust of religous leaders who realized that it was all a bunch of hokum, symbolism, smoke and mirrors. I think religious leaders generally believe that they are expressing the perfect, revealed truth of the faith. Of course, human beings are human beings and from an outsider's perspective it is easy to see how faith has been twisted to fit leaders' own personal preferences and prejudices. But I just don't believe that religous leaders were thinking "well, I can control the masses if I give them this story."

Religious history does not support this view, though. It is well documented that Gnostic sects taught Christian doctrine but that higher-ups were taught that Christ was not a true, literal person, but a symbol designed to teach. They believed the symbols promoted subconscious learning, and once someone finally "got it", they were initiated higher into the Gnostic order. Once this got out, the Catholics, who had adopted a more literal interpretation, exterminated them. The Mithraic religion was similar, and, even though it had a central figure identical to Christ in almost all ways (same birthday, same birth circumstances, same story essentially), but taught its higher-ups that he was a symbol of a spiritual truth instead of a literal person; Again, they were exterminated - which is why so many ancient religions had death orders against anyone talking or discussing the inner mysteries with the un-initiated. Why would those orders have existed if they were not taught something different?

It all falls back to what that Catholic priest once told me: "We teach myths in order to teach spiritual truths." I think that is a very ancient attitude about religion. They believed very strongly in the spiritual truths, but not the literal truth of the myths.

I think religion can never admit to its own flexibility. It purports to reveal bedrock truths about the very nature of existence. Should those truths openly change, then they were never truths in the first place. And what reason would there be to believe that last week's truth is any more concrete than this week's? So they subtly change over time, while maintaining that there really never was any change. It is very Orwellian.

You might be right there for today, but Catholic history does not show it - they very openly changed doctrines many times in history through very well known councils and documents. The Mormon religion has also been through some well-documented changes, publicised among the Mormons.

As an aside, ever notice how Catholic crucifixes always have Christ nailed to it and their doctrine emphasises the sacrifice (and in turn how our personal sacrifices better the world), and protestant crosses do not have Christ on it, and their doctrine emphasises the resurrection, or how faith in God will save us? Having attended both Catholic and Lutheran churches, I found that to be an interesting and subtle difference. The Catholic service emphasises what we can do to better each other through sacrifice, and the Lutheran service emphasises what gifts God shall bestow upon believers and how worthless we are without Jesus.

 

[thormagni]

I think that is because they have not been taught to do so, not because they cannot do so.

I would LIKE for that to be the case. But I FEAR that it is not. From what I have seen of human interactions, I think it is a rare person who operates on a symbolic level. Instead people generally choose to operate on a surface, literal level, or else they are incapable of operating at a deeper level.

I am just saying that the elite were taught a different religion than the masses in the ancient times, and that the myths carried the keys to that different religion. Of course they believed - but it was different than it is today.

For the vast majority of the population, then and now, I think that was and is not the case. I doubt that the beliefs of the average, NASCAR-loving suburban dad are any more or less deeply ingrained than the beliefs of the Roman centurion or the Norse fisherman. I think they are told what to believe, they believe it and that settles it (paraphrasing the bumper sticker.) I don't think teaching them the symbolism of their beliefs would give them anything but confusion. It is enough for most people that the priest or shaman tells them to do this, in this order and on this day. That is all they need and all they want. Concrete, simple answers to complex questions.

Now, I will agree that the priests then and now probably recognized that the particular religious tradition was a symbolic gesture while the masses did not. You light the incense in this order to symbolize blah-bla, or you eat the wafer of bread to symbolize such-and-such. But I do not believe that the priests generally though the entire belief system was a symbol, which I understood you to say earlier. In other words, I don't think you rise to the level of pope and suddenly find out that this is all an elaborate social construction and there is no god.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Well, the impression I get is that it was more self-guided than that. If the person did not question what he was taught, he was left there (your Norse fisherman) because higher learning would confuse him. However, there are and always have been people inclined to dig deeper. They would come to a new conclusion on their own, would express their consternation and resulting confusion (cognative dissonance) to a religious authority, who would then say, "Aha, you are ready. Let me explain." Then, after taking the appropriate oaths, he would be taught the next step and let be. Some will stop here. Others will run with the information and come to another conclusion that creates disparity - and then he would be initiated higher and new explanations would be given. He would not be taught anything the higher-ups felt the person was not already beginning to grasp.

Thus, the Norse fisherman who was content with Odin and Ragnorak would be left with his contentment (I have no idea if Norse religion was a typical mystery religion or not; my researches have been about the Mediterranean religions - so the Norse thing is just an illustration).

 

[thormagni]

You might be right there for today, but Catholic history does not show it - they very openly changed doctrines many times in history through very well known councils and documents. The Mormon religion has also been through some well-documented changes, publicised among the Mormons.

As an outsider, with outsider eyes, you and I see that churches have changed many times and taken many different directions, contrary to their previous direction. On the inside though, people believe that the church is unchanging and eternal. They NEED to believe that. So they accept that the changes occurred while simultaneously believing that was always the way things were. The word of God is eternal and unchanging. So, the believers choose to believe that God always meant things to be the new way, and the church is only adjusting itself to better align with God's will. The previous way wasn't wrong, so much as it was an incomplete understanding.

 

[Grimhelm]

Understanding Symbolism

It is my thinking that it doesn't really matter who understands symbolism and who doesn't. The average joe has no real inkling that when he gives up candy to the demon-clothed kids outside his door at Halloween that he is participating in ritual and symbolism, or if he does, he doesn't really care or investigate it further. Johnny Colts Fan doesn't think anything of his game or his face painting or his cheering or his ritualized slaughter. Is he incapable of understanding that his game is symbolic war? Does he fathom that football is ritualized mating superiority? He may and he may not. The fact is, the symbolic value of these events is strong and inspiring. Many times our own urges, questions, fears, and desires are acted out through ritual, and so acting them out relieves us of having to question further or desire further. My only point is that symbolism is powerful and equally important to the human mind, primarily because he lives in two worlds; symbol and that which is symbolized. He cannot escape this, therefore it behooves religion, if its goals are to really speak to human beings in the most efficient manner, to incorporate more symbolism and ritual alongside its "concrete" interpretations of reality.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I can't disagree with that.

Incidently, once you have given someone a ritualized way to do something, a socially acceptable way to be brutal, (and if they accept that ritual) you have also effectively controlled that someone, whether that was the intent of the ritual or not. Religion creates social stability by doing just that.

I think ritual and symbolism are important to our psyches - possibly for our own stability.